Minolta 85/1.4 vs CZ 85/1.4

[ricardovaste]

<left> *<i>excluding the highly priced and hard to find LE

Minolta version</i><p><P><b>Has anyone had the opportunity to handle both of

these items? One of the Minolta versions (all optically the same); the Orignal,

the RS G and the G (D) RS... and then the CZ85/1.4?<P>This may be seemingly

unlikely, but I know there are a few out there that use either one. Im just

wondering about wide open performance. Is there really that much difference

between the Minolta and the CZ at f/1.4? I realise this wont have any effect on

the quality of my photographs as they both far exceed my capabilities with a

camera, Im just curious as to other peoples experiences is all :). Feel free to

share examples if you can!<p></b>Thanks for any info.<Br>Kind regards,<Br>Rich

[douglas_ferling]

Read this whole thread. It's a good overview. All of these lenses are great, but the difference I've noticed (aside from sharpness) is that the Zeiss is a bit cooler and with more contrast.

 

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27514

[ricardovaste]

Thanks Douglas. A few couple of days after I posted this on here, someone asked the same question on dyxum... if you look, I actually respond in that thread you sent me hehe

 

Looks like the CZ is fastest at focusing and possibly has the best bokeh. Thanks for sharing your experiences with it again.

[douglas_ferling]

Ha, that's funny. I didn't realize you were on there :) I gotta say, I'm thinking about changing my lens lineup a bit. After seeing some tests of the 24-70 2.8, I'm thinking about dumping my 28-75 2.8, 24 2.8, and 50mm 1.4 to help finance the Zeiss zoom...although it'll still cost me a grand! The 50mm is the only one I'd miss, but it's the older model without the circular aperture, and I've been thinking about replacing it anyways. That would leave me with 20mm 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 85mm 1.4, and 70-210 f4 (i will eventually replace this, but i don't need the length very often) as my main lens line-up. Dang you, Zeiss!

[ricardovaste]

I know, that CZ24-70 does look like a very nice lens. Though I'm not entirely convinced of its usefullness on APS-C. Not denying it would be a nice lens to have, it seems excellent. Just, I feel Sony would have been bettery off bringing out the wide angle zoom first, whch is supposedly something like 16-35/2.8. That would be more useful on APS-C, atleast for me :-).

 

But in eventually going FF, you have no reason not to go for the new CZ :-). I was almost set on this 85/1.4, but I have a 300/2.8 in my hands now (and weighing me down!) that im 'testing out' for a while... so its hard to know where to put the money... tempting to just keep it in my back pocket!

[douglas_ferling]

I think you're right for a lot of people about the 16-35mm. I plan on the full frame, so for me the 24-70 is fine. Hopefully, the wide angle will come with the full frame camera, too. Enjoy that 300mm!

[jamesdak]

Hmmm I used to have the original Minolta 85/1.4 and now have a Contax Zeiss 85/2.8. Unfortunately I did not have them both at the same time. I always liked my Minolta 85mm but actually used my 100mm more. But, now that I shoot 5 different Contax Zeiss primes (on EOS bodies) I can honestly say that there's just something about that Zeiss glass that give an extra pop to the image. I find it very appealing but that may not be the case for everyone.<div></div>

[liquidstereo]

<p>I haven't used the CZ but the 85/1.4 G is simply superb.<br>

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/258/minolta-85mm-f14g-d-af.html</p>